the censorship that these large media conglomerates are starting to assert has become all the more apparent

I don't really see this as an issue of censorship or the Bush backlash, but rather the fear of an American backlash. Chances are that the financial and Oscar success of Bowling for Columbine has encouraged Moore to make this next movie even more controversial and offensive. And of all issues to do make a controversial and offensive movie, he chose 9-11. Soon after its release nationwide, boycotts of Miramax & parent Disney would likely result, and even if the movie makes $100 million worldwide Disney doesn't want to deal with that hassle.

Disney owns the studios. Disney owns the rights. Disney owns it all. And if this movie is offensive enough to produce nationwide backlash and well-organized boycotts, I can see why they wouldn't want it to happen. As long as they own it, they have a right to make sure it doesn't come out under their name. Disney is not a newspaper or an art musem that has the obligation to give all opinions and interpretations the light of day. They're a company making money, and people don't give their money to corporations they find offensive.

"Freedom" is just starting to sound like another hollow Bush campaign promise

So one man's freedom is another man's P.R. suicide? Shouldn't Disney have the "freedom" to choose what movies it does and does not want released under its name?

Since when did "art" become the all-determining factor in what a major corporation chooses to post its signature on? This company wants $$$$, and it should have the "freedom" to decide what is the best way to make that money. Releasing a movie that will alienate potential $$$$ is bad business, plain and simple. Moore needs to quick whining and realize that if his movie is really something worthwhile, it will find its way to the big screen.

Originally posted by stammer476 So one man's freedom is another man's P.R. suicide? Shouldn't Disney have the "freedom" to choose what movies it does and does not want released under its name? Since when did "art" become the all-determining factor in what a major corporation chooses to post its signature on? This company wants $$$$, and it should have the "freedom" to decide what is the best way to make that money. Releasing a movie that will alienate potential $$$$ is bad business, plain and simple. Moore needs to quick whining and realize that if his movie is really something worthwhile, it will find its way to the big screen.

That's why it's time to do a little "hack and slash" on media ownership. You're correct; businesses only have one thing on their mind: $$$, even if that runs contrary to the public interest. Imagine that: "public interest." That's actually what the FCC was founded for: to ensure that the airwaves were for the "public interest" and not "corporate interest." No, all it is now is a tool for corporations to hack at old "public interest" regulations and Biblical fundamentalists to censor speech that they find offensive, even if they have been and are a minority of the population.

If Disney did not own Miramax, this furor would never have happened. It is time to start busting these media conglomerates into a million pieces, and Disney should be relegated to a historical curiosity.

Let me first admit that I have little to no knowledge of how media ownership works. But it seems to me that if Disney owns the rights to Miramax which owns the rights to the F911, then Disney has the right to say what does and does not get released. Like I said before, they're not a newspaper or an art museum, they don't have an obligation for free speech. They're a company trying to make money, and if they think releasing an offensive (and as we've seen before, historically inaccurate) movie is going to alienate them from their money, of course they wouldn't release it. It doesn't take a business degree to figure that out.

I just don't understand why it is the obligation of Disney to release anything and everything it owns under the banner of "free speech." That constitutional right doesn't play a factor when someone else is footing the bill. Again, I don't know how all of this works, but why doesn't Moore just ditch Disney and go with someone else?

Oh gee...surprise surprise, I am not the only one who noticied the trumped up bullshit Mr. Moore is spewing on his website.

[Q]Lies And Moore Lies [Updated]
Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again?

Sure looks like it.

Just days from the opening of the Cannes Film Festival he’s basking in a wave of publicity that the Walt Disney Company is blocking subsidiary Miramax from distributing his new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” on political grounds.

Publicity-hound Moore’s allegations about Disney ring false. The very same Disney Company -- through its Hyperion division-- just published Pacifica Radio host Amy Goodman’s new book “The Exception to the Rulers” – a volume brimming with just as much lefty fringe politics and anti-Bush theorizing as contained in Moore’s films. Indeed, Goodman's book is a blunder-buss assualt on corporate media conglomerates-- like Disney![/Q]

[Q]They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent. [/Q]

[Q]“The only thing that’s new here is in Disney’s reaffirmation of their previously stated position,” one well-placed source said on condition of anonymity. “Miramax never said it was distributing the film, even if people assumed it would find a way.” [/Q]

Nothing like some publicity before Cannes, to try and boost your movie.

just as disney has the right to not distribute the film, moore has the right to publicize it.

while the distribution choice is that of disney and disney alone, the nature of media ownership at present in western democracies can have a censoring effect: concentrated ownership, often with diverse interests and deep political connections, has again and again proven to have a chilling effect on the nature of discourse which these media conglomerates choose to promote.

it is systemic and by design. mass appeal is also one of the unfortunate vices of moore's art form.

there is, of course, not complete censorship: consider the persistence of chomsky as well as moore. but these are people who exist, at best, on the fringes of the mainstream and thus, occassionally, turn to guerilla tactics for publicity-such as it appears moore may be doing, again.

when a system is intended to suppress certain points of view, alternative means will be employed to disseminate information.

Originally posted by kobayashi
there is, of course, not complete censorship: consider the persistence of chomsky as well as moore. but these are people who exist, at best, on the fringes of the mainstream and thus, occassionally, turn to guerilla tactics for publicity-such as it appears moore may be doing, again.

when a system is intended to suppress certain points of view, alternative means will be employed to disseminate information. [/B]